There is currently no politically acceptable solution for the US gun problem. I think that is a pretty accurate statement.
There are a LOT of potential solutions. Many of these solution avoid having to deal with the Second Amendment at all. I have seen these solutions discussed in a variety of forms over the last few decades.
There is currently no politically acceptable solution for the US gun problem. I think that is a pretty accurate statement.
There are a LOT of potential solutions. Many of these solution avoid having to deal with the Second Amendment at all. I have seen these solutions discussed in a variety of forms over the last few decades.
But they are still not politically acceptable or possible.
The defensive boundaries set against gun control ( and that have actually been expand in the last few decades with the re-interpretation of the Second Amendment) are so far out from the core issues that you can't really begin to address the core issues.
The fact that one of the major responses to gun violence is MOAR guns, indicates the depth and breadth (and non-rational) nature of the problem.
In the end, there is simply not enough anger or fear to generate change... while there IS enough anger and fear on the anti-control side to generate successful resistance.
The National Firearms Act of 1934 was pretty successful--but it was driven very much by its context (gangsters killing each other and committing crimes using fully automatic weapons). But it relied upon a SCotUS that interpreted the 2A rather differently than the current one does and it relied upon market incentives... and a much different culture.
One of the underlying problems is that there are a lot of solutions that LOOK good, but when it comes time for the rubber to meet the road, people lose their enthusiasm for them. largely because of cost/logistics, but often because people suddenly become aware of how it might actually affect THEM.
It is easy to tick off a box on a survey in favor of X. That doesn't cost anything and makes you look good, look in tune with a majority of people, look sane/rational.
When you have to cough up the money for it or when it negatively impacts you, well then it is a whole different thing.
And American politicians have become experts at poison pilling desired legislation so that nothing actually happens (because it doesn't pass ITFP) or because they tailored it so that it isn't actually effective.
Well said, R. Reduction of gun violence--which is tiny in percentage of populations but enormous in public fear--will not happen with just Moar Gun Control. A multi-pronged approach is needed: suicide intervention, crime prevention, violence interruption, criminal justice reform that diverts non-violent criminals into other forms of punishment but keeps the violent away from us for long periods of time. Strong public health messages along the lines of "don't drink and drive, don't shoot innocent people." All of that will reduce the urge to pull the trigger. Instead, we howl about assault rifles that cause fewer annual deaths than swimming pools.
But America won't take that approach because it's expensive and time-consuming. It's cheap and easy to scream "It's the guns, just ban them and nobody will murder anyone again!!" So that's what we'll do.
Except we are unlikely to even do THAT (ban guns).
The reality is that the solution lies in large cultural changes. It also requires a massive reduction in the amount of fear that politicians willfully generate in order to get and hold power.
The abandonment of a lot of American historical mythology.
It would require a far more tolerant (and community focused) society and a far more rational society. That will require a concerted effort over the span of more than 1 generation.
There is currently no politically acceptable solution for the US gun problem. I think that is a pretty accurate statement.
There are a LOT of potential solutions. Many of these solution avoid having to deal with the Second Amendment at all. I have seen these solutions discussed in a variety of forms over the last few decades.
But they are still not politically acceptable or possible.
The defensive boundaries set against gun control ( and that have actually been expand in the last few decades with the re-interpretation of the Second Amendment) are so far out from the core issues that you can't really begin to address the core issues.
The fact that one of the major responses to gun violence is MOAR guns, indicates the depth and breadth (and non-rational) nature of the problem.
In the end, there is simply not enough anger or fear to generate change... while there IS enough anger and fear on the anti-control side to generate successful resistance.
The National Firearms Act of 1934 was pretty successful--but it was driven very much by its context (gangsters killing each other and committing crimes using fully automatic weapons). But it relied upon a SCotUS that interpreted the 2A rather differently than the current one does and it relied upon market incentives... and a much different culture.
One of the underlying problems is that there are a lot of solutions that LOOK good, but when it comes time for the rubber to meet the road, people lose their enthusiasm for them. largely because of cost/logistics, but often because people suddenly become aware of how it might actually affect THEM.
It is easy to tick off a box on a survey in favor of X. That doesn't cost anything and makes you look good, look in tune with a majority of people, look sane/rational.
When you have to cough up the money for it or when it negatively impacts you, well then it is a whole different thing.
And American politicians have become experts at poison pilling desired legislation so that nothing actually happens (because it doesn't pass ITFP) or because they tailored it so that it isn't actually effective.
Well said, R. Reduction of gun violence--which is tiny in percentage of populations but enormous in public fear--will not happen with just Moar Gun Control. A multi-pronged approach is needed: suicide intervention, crime prevention, violence interruption, criminal justice reform that diverts non-violent criminals into other forms of punishment but keeps the violent away from us for long periods of time. Strong public health messages along the lines of "don't drink and drive, don't shoot innocent people." All of that will reduce the urge to pull the trigger. Instead, we howl about assault rifles that cause fewer annual deaths than swimming pools.
But America won't take that approach because it's expensive and time-consuming. It's cheap and easy to scream "It's the guns, just ban them and nobody will murder anyone again!!" So that's what we'll do.
Except we are unlikely to even do THAT (ban guns).
The reality is that the solution lies in large cultural changes. It also requires a massive reduction in the amount of fear that politicians willfully generate in order to get and hold power.
The abandonment of a lot of American historical mythology.
It would require a far more tolerant (and community focused) society and a far more rational society. That will require a concerted effort over the span of more than 1 generation.
Your view reflects mine. We will not ban guns (and shouldn't) and even if we did it wouldn't solve the problem. Cultural change is needed.